[libc++] Add more benchmarks for the associative container hint interfaces #162840
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
llvmbot
added
the
libc++
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx Author: Nikolas Klauser (philnik777) ChangesThe current benchmarks test a very specific case, which makes them rather misleading. This adds new benchmarks so we have better coverage. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162840.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/libcxx/test/benchmarks/containers/associative/associative_container_benchmarks.h b/libcxx/test/benchmarks/containers/associative/associative_container_benchmarks.h
index b39569812640b..22a6d0d753b0c 100644
--- a/libcxx/test/benchmarks/containers/associative/associative_container_benchmarks.h
+++ b/libcxx/test/benchmarks/containers/associative/associative_container_benchmarks.h
@@ -305,11 +305,19 @@ void associative_container_benchmarks(std::string container) {
// The insert(hint, ...) methods are only relevant for ordered containers, and we lack
// a good way to compute a hint for unordered ones.
if constexpr (is_ordered_container) {
- bench("insert(hint, value) (good hint)", [=](auto& st) {
+ auto insert_good_hint_bench = [=](bool bench_end_iter, auto& st) {
const std::size_t size = st.range(0);
std::vector<Value> in = make_value_types(generate_unique_keys(size + 1));
- Value to_insert = in.back();
- in.pop_back();
+ auto skipped_val = bench_end_iter ? in.size() - 1 : in.size() / 2;
+ Value to_insert = in[skipped_val];
+ { // Remove the element
+ std::vector<Value> tmp;
+ tmp.reserve(in.size() - 1);
+ for (size_t i = 0; i != in.size(); ++i)
+ if (i != skipped_val)
+ tmp.emplace_back(in[i]);
+ in = std::move(tmp);
+ }
std::vector<Container> c(BatchSize, Container(in.begin(), in.end()));
typename Container::iterator hints[BatchSize];
@@ -332,13 +340,23 @@ void associative_container_benchmarks(std::string container) {
}
st.ResumeTiming();
}
- });
+ };
+ bench("insert(hint, value) (good hint, end)", [=](auto& state) { insert_good_hint_bench(true, state); });
+ bench("insert(hint, value) (good hint, middle)", [=](auto& state) { insert_good_hint_bench(false, state); });
- bench("insert(hint, value) (bad hint)", [=](auto& st) {
+ auto insert_bad_hint_bench = [=](bool bench_end_iter, auto& st) {
const std::size_t size = st.range(0);
std::vector<Value> in = make_value_types(generate_unique_keys(size + 1));
- Value to_insert = in.back();
- in.pop_back();
+ auto skipped_val = bench_end_iter ? in.size() - 1 : in.size() / 2;
+ Value to_insert = in[skipped_val];
+ { // Remove the element
+ std::vector<Value> tmp;
+ tmp.reserve(in.size() - 1);
+ for (size_t i = 0; i != in.size(); ++i)
+ if (i != skipped_val)
+ tmp.emplace_back(in[i]);
+ in = std::move(tmp);
+ }
std::vector<Container> c(BatchSize, Container(in.begin(), in.end()));
while (st.KeepRunningBatch(BatchSize)) {
@@ -355,7 +373,10 @@ void associative_container_benchmarks(std::string container) {
}
st.ResumeTiming();
}
- });
+ };
+
+ bench("insert(hint, value) (bad hint, end)", [=](auto& state) { insert_bad_hint_bench(true, state); });
+ bench("insert(hint, value) (bad hint, middle)", [=](auto& state) { insert_bad_hint_bench(false, state); });
}
bench("insert(iterator, iterator) (all new keys)", [=](auto& st) {
|
ldionne
approved these changes
Oct 10, 2025
| bench("insert(hint, value) (good hint)", [=](auto& st) { | ||
| auto insert_good_hint_bench = [=](bool bench_end_iter, auto& st) { | ||
| const std::size_t size = st.range(0); | ||
| std::vector<Value> in = make_value_types(generate_unique_keys(size + 1)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could consider returning a std::set from make_value_types instead, that would call out explicitly that the data is sorted and unique, and would make stuff like this easier. OK to do in a follow-up though.
DharuniRAcharya
pushed a commit
to DharuniRAcharya/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2025
…faces (llvm#162840) The current benchmarks test a very specific case, which makes them rather misleading. This adds new benchmarks so we have better coverage.
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/169/builds/15918 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
akadutta
pushed a commit
to akadutta/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 14, 2025
…faces (llvm#162840) The current benchmarks test a very specific case, which makes them rather misleading. This adds new benchmarks so we have better coverage.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current benchmarks test a very specific case, which makes them rather misleading. This adds new benchmarks so we have better coverage.